A site devoted to the study and discussion of ethnic and traditional polytheism throughout the world, in regard to its nature, history, and present standing in general.

10 reasons the World needs Polytheism

If there is one word that can describe the world as it now goes, it is excess. There are *too many* changes to keep pace with and there is *too much* of everything to keep things in balance. There is both more good and more bad than ever, and it is the sheer quantity as well as magnitude of those that is producing uncertainty and anxiety. Humankind is not sure what exactly is coming in future times because there are so many possibilities and so many opinions on the matter. We tend to count our blessings as people and as a species in order to help ourselves go on, hoping for improvement. This is a good habit that we all need to cultivate, but it can sometimes lead to forgetfulness about or inaction towards current problems. Polytheism, when properly understood, provides a holistic and simpler worldview that can mitigate the excesses of today and provide for a better tomorrow. Below are 10 urgent concerns that polytheism can address for the benefit of the world as a whole.

Nationalism and Globalism

There is a battle raging in the world today between those who are for the sovereignty of the nation-state and their opponents who support a globalized culture. Both have good and bad reasons for their respective positions, especially considering the socio-political volatility that has been going on since the last century. However, neither side is quite aware that a desire for more, a desire for excess, is driving this fear and this division. The nation-state is too large of an entity to be stable and globalism only complicates the problem. An organized regionalism that can prevent unnecessary internal conflict as well as protect from external interference is best. This is consistent with polytheism because the plurality of Gods/Goddesses enables the plurality of peoples and cultures. If each people or region is identified with its particular native God(s), and if each God is not inherently better than another, this can promote friendly cooperation and neighborly exchange. Now the inane political division will be replaced with healthy cultural distinction.

Racism and Multiculturalism

The solution for these problems follows the earlier one closely. Racism and multiculturalism are consequences of the excesses of large entities (states, empires) and the inequalities they create. If culture is measured by economic ability alone (as it is today) and then globalized on the world’s stage, some people will inevitably think of themselves as better or worse than others. The problem only grows when the state’s (or super-state’s) priority is economic rather than cultural prosperity. With such a mentality, people become numbers in a large field, game-pieces in the hands of bigger forces, thus losing a sense of who they really are, and becoming deluded or dejected as to what they can achieve. Polytheism, on the other hand, ensures the stability of identity, the continuity of culture and the equality of peoples. No superiority and inferiority complex can flourish here without impiety because if no regional God or Goddess is inherently superior or inferior to another, then by extension the same applies to people. If some peoples colonized others, reparations can be made and polytheism can reverse the inequality.

Materialism and Fanaticism

Excess begets excess. Too much material possession, as explained before, causes inequality and fear of loss, therefore begetting too much hostile ideology. We see this today in the form of Westernism and Islamism, two forces attempting global domination while alleging self-defense. There is a more general battle between atheism and monotheism, connected with other socio-political conflicts, that endangering many peoples and cultures who find themselves at the mercy of powerful forces. Those who don’t choose one of the two camps become weak and isolated, quickly dismissed and ignored. The harm done to the environment also accelerates when the opposing forces mobilize and fight. This is not the case in polytheism; here a balance between the material and spiritual is maintained, and sometimes the are joined together in harmony. Here you don’t find linear or apocalyptic thinking of the kind that makes people fearful, greedy, arrogant or desperate for their side to win and achieve domination.

Mass warfare and Environmental degradation

Powerful forces that transcend a small region, that is to say empires, are created by conflict with weaker peoples and with nature. Excessive ambitions needs excessive costs and thus causes excessive damages on many sides. Imperialism is a pathological disease that is contagious; it is based on a desire for too much, and once one empire is formed, others soon arise around it for defense. But empires don’t fragment in times of peace, because the ambition of the emperor remains as well as the needs of those he patronizes and who worship him. In order to keep his subjects happy and in order, a war on nature is waged to give them *more and more*. This is no different from the behavior of a patient with terminal illness who knows he will die soon and thus spends all he can today. And this becomes a vicious cycle when populations increase; if an empire collapses from environmental degradation or massive warfare, it joins another one that is larger or attempts to re-form through fierce battles for domination that cost lives and lands even more. Although polytheism existed in empires, it was always corrupted by them. Emperors claimed divinity unjustly and proceeded to act, usually in accordance with powerful priesthoods (that were either afraid or ambitious), in such a way that would make them possess *more and more* at the expense of people and environment, and often at the expense of foreign Gods too. Polytheism, properly understood, sees an irrevocable connection between Nature and Divinity, sometimes joining them together in the case of immanence. And the Gods always closer to the people that worship them far more than emperors who seek to appropriate such a relationship. As for environmentalism, it is rather amusing to observe some scientists rehashing polytheism to form their “Gaia theory”.

The population predicament- human and animal

Technological and scientific developments have been praised as the triumph of the human race in general and Western Civilization in particular. Progress has been believed, even now when it is faltering, to be a linear process whereby *more and more* science and technology can solve whatever problems humanity faces. There are attempts to cure all diseases and reverse aging, in order to create a super-human being. And if the earth cannot carry enough of our wonderful race, the hopeful scientists say, then there may perhaps be room in other planets! But these are not Nature’s laws, which are also the laws of the Gods. This so-called advancement and progress has only disrupted ecology and these changes will be reversed when natural and divine laws see fit. The mentality of endless growth, either economic or demographic, must cease before it renders extinct many wonderful species of animals that have long graced this Earth. Polytheism’s inherent respect for living beings, sometimes shifting to animism, would not allow endless human production and reproduction at the expense of natural and divine property. Polytheism’s priority is not to ensure the comforts of humankind, that is to say anthropocentrism, but rather to maintain a holistic system that takes everything else into account. This is why we have Gods of healing and of disease, Gods of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic shape and Gods embodying divine trees, mountains and spaces.

Capitalism and Communism

We are prone to commit the mistake of creating very complex solutions in order to solve equally complex problems, while forgetting the root of such problems is usually their ever expanding complexity and the excess that surrounds it. Capitalism is good, cries one person, because it has created the varied culture and advancement the world has today. Communism is far better, shouts another, because it offers comfort and equality to all. Although the theories of Marxism are excellent in many ways, the beneficial application of them has been impossible. Why? Because the state remains, with all its complexities and excesses, and wherever there is a state, as many new problems arise as old ones are solved. It is a way of life that must change, not through economic ideologies that pretend to know how to correct its flaws, but a complete decentralization that puts an end to the hierarchies that perpetuate excessive inequality. Electing Sanders instead of Trump or keeping Trump will neither cause considerable change nor alter the flaws that inhabit the core, flaws that have been developing for 5000 years since the earliest states arose. Polytheism would do away with the big, excessive and centralized state just as it would with the empire, and for the same reasons. Economic solutions, while needed, must be preceded by cultural and regional realizations springing from grassroots (to use a double-meaning) and this polytheism can very effectively provide.

Populism and Elitism

The conflict between the many and the few is an old one, among many others that plague the centralized state. It creates a division between two or more classes that is quickly exploited by ambitious leaders and capable orators. Marx was the first to understand, though not with complete insight, the perpetual problem of inequality. His solution was not necessarily to lessen production but to give the means of it to the lower classes, whom he trusted would act in their own simple interests and thus bring about equality. We can see how this failed in the October Revolution because began as a movement against elitism soon became populism, and workers were not long after to be executed for offences by those who at first claimed to act in their defense. Decentralized regionalism, by limiting both the means and the amount of production as well as giving it collectively to a community of a moderate size, is the better solution. Polytheism, as a balanced religion, can enable this difficult process to occur smoothly and be maintained steadily. There is something serious to be learned from hunter-gatherers whose anarchic animism and egalitarianism makes them averse to inequality, thus removing the root causes of classes and social instability altogether. Polytheism contains components of animism that should be emphasized rather than laid aside.

Patriarchy and Feminism

The fast pace of change in modern society has also unsettled the home as well as social relations between the sexes. It is true that men have long dominated most institutions, both political and cultural, without allowing women to join or even express themselves. In fact, empire and imperialism is purely a male phenomenon of *excess*. Patriarchy, defined as the domination of men over women and nature, has led to all sorts of problems. But even so, it is not men themselves who are to blame, but rather an idea they are sometimes prone to hold. The male and the female, the masculine and the feminine are principles of life that must not and cannot be set in opposition to each other. Feminism, while in many ways promoting reform and wisdom, has in other ways attempted to undermine or appropriate the masculine principle of life, thus imitating the excesses of patriarchy instead of limiting it. Yet this battle would not have existed, or would have been greatly diminished, if polytheism were in practice. Here the masculine and feminine, unlike in monotheism, are enshrined in our worldviews and embodied in our very Deities. Sometimes we do find ancient polytheistic societies following patriarchy, but this was the result of a faulty lifestyle and mentality rather than something drawn from holy scriptures that are regarded as eternal.

Mass individualism and collectivism

The various difficulties of modern life are aggravated by an excessive attachment either to the self or to colossal groups. These practices give the illusion of being coping mechanisms, but in reality they are nothing but symptoms of a larger infection that modern society is undergoing. Loneliness has been causing more mental illness than anyone had expected, and yet there is still the oxymoronic celebration of individualism. On the other hand, mass participation in dualistic groups, whether in politics or culture, has risen to new heights with modern communication, causing (according to research) further distrust and disaffection in society at large. Once again, it is the state that must be blamed for these dangerous phenomena. Individualism serves the state because it makes the isolated person not only dependent on the system (directly or indirectly) in order to support his lifestyle, but also supportive of it through his production and “creativity”. Collectivism serves the state also because it not only gives people an illusion of their importance (thus keeping them satisfied), but it creates massive herds that can be summoned and driven and goaded when needed, whether for a serious purpose or not. And yet, the state must always suffer and rush to correct faults when individualism and collectivism go *too far* as they often do. Polytheism once again differs from this excess and promotes the community or the tribe, a smaller group wherein people can be brought up with more happiness and stability. Nothing can replace the power derived from the love and support of a large kin and close friends. Even the Gods, in their distinct pantheons, live in this manner.

Anthropocentrism and Misanthropy

Excess, in process of time, can cause of a strong reaction of greed or guilt, defiance or defeat, pride or penitence, self-love or self-hate. Much like the other unstable dualisms discussed before, anthropocentrism and misanthropy similarly arise from a world gone too far. When there is too much, one can either embrace it and make a way of life of it or reject it firmly as a corrupting thing that ought to be destroyed. The latter, while a very undesirable position to have, must not be understood as a total evil, but rather as a consequence to the former by people who are left on the margins or who are otherwise unfortunate. Humanism, the euphemistic term for anthropocentrism, always pretends to promote self-control and happiness, but how can this be done holistically and lastingly when the human is placed at the center of all things? When militant atheists and anti-theists say they reject the notion of a Deity altogether (usually without looking beyond monotheism) because Deities are human constructs that are not real, it makes one wonder whether they are defeating their own argument. Religious thinking is inherent in the human mind (see Jonathan Heidt’s research) whether expressed in “religion” or not. Those who worship a wrongly constructed divinity or no divinity at all are merely worshippers of what is human; the Western notion of human progress is just that. Because this religious thinking is usually derived from Protestant monotheism, it is quick to label those who differ as heretics who should be destroyed, metaphorically or literally. Polytheism, on the other hand, does not measure everything according to human pleasure and pain or in terms of Western thinking. Sometimes there must be suffering because it is divine and natural law, other times we choose to suffer in order to attain something greater than our own selves. The Gods and Nature are at the center of things, and we revolve around them and live in their shadows, whether we choose it or not.

——————————————-

As a final note, it must be pointed out that polytheism encompass a great many traditions throughout many historical eras. I have not delved into details here as to which components or ideas exactly are beneficial for a particular problem listed above. I have attempted to examine polytheism in the course of my posts in this site, in order to extract some of its more original essence, free from imperialism and artificial syncretism. I have even advanced the theory that the state, as well as the empire, has (along with its intellectual and religious instruments) directly contributed to the decline of polytheism and the parallel rise of monotheism. Since polytheism is therefore flexible and layered, it must be penetrated and sifted just as a geologist or archaeologist would do with the ground. Then hypotheses and proposals must be written and reviewed and agreed upon. Until this is done, I am afraid polytheism will contribute to the problems above rather than correct them.

Welcome again, Soundeagle! Thanks for your kind compliment about my post; I hope others will think the same and derive some benefit from it. I understand & agree with your advice about multiculturalism, although I would use a different term that lacks similar connotation. You may have noticed that I advanced criticism of “multiculturalism” along with racism (while not thinking they are necessarily at equal fault), that is to say, the notion as it is currently being practiced or encouraged by state governments and global corporations. The world is full of beautiful peoples and cultures, but modern “multiculturalism” advocates for their global presence *in the same places at the same time* rather than in distinction with neighborly exchange. I tend to believe what may be termed “cultural pluralism” is better, because it allows each of the peoples to be treated on an equal footing, without interference. Cultures and peoples have evolved differently throughout the years, each with their own mark of distinction (and beauty), and therefore if they were to be put together *in the same places at the same time*, as we can see today in large cities, the result would be either or both of two things we already are witnessing 1) Nativism/racism/populism 2) Inequality resulting from cultural differences that press people to conform to the majority and demonize those who don’t. Even liberals who advocate for minorities adopt a patronizing tone and policies and that’s because there is no true multiculturalism that can exist; everyone must speak the language of the majority and adopt their laws. Even if their native cultures are respected, it is expected that the second generation (and beyond) will lose much of their parents’ culture. So, multiculturalism (not as you use it, but as liberal thinkers use it) in my mind means a slow assimilation to the global culture/hegemony that has been molded by Anglo-America for its continued profit and power. It’s quite a subtle game of imperialism and all empires have been guilty of the same.

I forgot to respond to your other point regarding those belief systems you list. Simply defined, Pantheism is a hybrid of monism/monotheism with animism and Panentheism is a philosophical mode of animism. I have not (on the other hand) heard of the term polyculturalism before, but it seems that it differs from multiculturalism. And it may be that my characterization of the latter earlier was wrong. So much for ideological terminology! All I can say is that my position is one of ethnic and cultural pluralism.

Very well written article, this one. It provides a lot of food for thought.
As a Hindu, I have often come to the conclusion that people who have left monotheism and embraced polytheism understand many aspects of seemingly unrelated things better than people like me who were born into polytheism. It was after I came across polytheist blogs like this one that I began to see so much of my own traditions and heritage in a different way. Thank you very much, and may the Gods bless you!

Many thanks! A new member of polytheism can have a different perspective and also has some fresh energy as well as hope for change. The most important thing is sharing these thoughts with others, so that ideas don’t become individualistic, and I am glad you have come by to leave a good word. You Hindus are polytheism’s great hope for revival. It is enough to have such a man as Sadhguru in the world, spreading his wisdom and polytheistic ideas wherever he goes. I will need to post about him in the future, and please, be my guest to comment. Meantime, may the Gods bless you and keep us all blessed!

Thank you for those kind words. Although, I must warn you that Sadhguru isn’t someone you want to trust. Yes, he says a lot of good things, no denying that, but he’s somewhat of a charlatan who has become famous because of Hindu society, yet he avoids mentioning that whatever he has said and done is Hindu.
People like Sadhguru aren’t the first to fatten themselves on Hindu society, and then avoid mentioning the word ‘Hindu’. What he has done is simply following the same path that Sikhs, Arya Samaj and the Ramakrishna Mission have done.
The reason I say this is because there has been a lot of misappropriation, or to put it rather bluntly, stealing, of ideas from our tradition by New Age cults (like the neo-pagans that you have mentioned elsewhere on this blog) and various self styled ‘gurus’.
If you want some good reading material on Hindu Dharma (and its relationship with the broader polytheist world), I recommend you to read the books published by Voice Of India. The two people who headed VOI, namely Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel, had advocated for the revival of the ancient polytheistic traditions throughout the world. You can read some of the VOI books here: bharatvani.org/books/index.html

I have admired some of his views without going so far as becoming his follower. Yet I have noticed that he strangely dislikes the terms “religion” and “believing”, avoiding also references to Hindus and Hinduism. I take this as quibbling at best and dishonesty at worst. Nevertheless, from my observation he does seem to represent India abroad in a good light and thus indirectly in favor of the Hindu majority. On YouTube, his supporters are always Hindu, as far as I’ve seen. In India, I know that he defends traditional values (rationally) and is a friend of Modi. I have also seen him speak in favor the Ramayana against neoliberals and atheists. Perhaps his silence on Hinduism per se is not so much a statement in opposition to the majority, but as a personal position aligned with his native Telugu identity, which (if I am not mistaken) is more or less common in that region. But you are right I pointing out that he has a New Age leaning, which I dislike. Surely you haven’t missed my criticism of philosophers and individualists throughout this site! I will need to look into Swarup and Goel, who seem to be wiser in their vision for polytheism than Sadhguru. Thank you for the references.